[OSM-talk] Hiking Trails

Rik van der Helm rik at the-quickest.com
Tue Aug 14 14:16:34 BST 2007

For minor roads and pathes it's difficult (if not impossible) to find
out what 'legal' highway-tag you should use. THE exception is UK because
of the legal status of footway,cycleway,bridleway,byway. How difficult
it is to tag minor 'highways' is illustrated by the postings of spaetz,
Sven and Martin:

spaetz wrote:
> What prevents you from doing a highway=track;bicycle=yes as it is 
> described in the map features page?

Sven Geggus wrote
> correct translation for "landwirtschaftlicher Weg" these are usually
> asphaltic cycle/footways which I usually map as highway=service.

Martin Simon wrote
> The best solution should be to tag the road as e.g. highway=residential, 

That said it should be good to have another clear and for everybody
verifiable primary distinction. I suggest to use width of the
whateverkey=trail => width < 1m
whateverkey=path => width < 2m
whateverkey=track => width < 4m
whateverkey=road => width > 4m

access, surface, network info should be gathered in accompanying tags.

Jeffrey Martin wrote:
> If you have a road designed for cars or tractors then I would want that on
> my cycling or hiking map because I might want to go on it, but I want to 
> know that it's not specifically designed for bicycles.

In Proposed_features/Trail Hawke proposed an extra access-value
'designated' for that.

Martin Simon wrote:
> The best solution should be to tag the road as e.g. highway=residential, 
> ncn=something

I thought the idea of the network proposal is to tag the 'route' as

Gr, Rik

More information about the talk mailing list